4 ms·

You think it's a stretch to call her a "protester"? I think in ten years she might qualify for an even worse crime, "having thoughts." This is from the articl

You think it's a stretch to call her a "protester"? I think in ten years she might qualify for an even worse crime, "having thoughts." This is from the article: >When asked to explain the grounds for arresting a working journalist, Erickson told the Grand Forks Herald that he did not, in fact, consider Goodman a journalist. “She’s a protester, basically,” Erickson told the newspaper. Imagine in ten years where it said: "It's a huge stretch to call her a journalist. She's a thinker, basically. She came and she formed her own views, and then shared it online. She didn't just share the corporate story, this wasn't a press conference and she's not a journalist. She formed her own thoughts, and that's what she chose to share. I hope she gets locked up and the judge throws away the key." Luckily for us, the Internet doesn't work that way. :) It's a nice view on what happens if projects like Tor don't succeed, or if the agencies who rightfully backdoor them allow any crack of evidence of the same to leave outside of actual imminent terrorist plots and the like. It is super scary for anyone to use the word 'protester' as in the article or the way you've just used it. Bob Dylan just won a Nobel prize, but now protesting is grounds for arrest, apparently, as quoted from the article above. (By the way, I am outraged at this phrasing, even though I consider Democracy Now to be extremely left-leaning, it is like talking to Chomsky. That doesn't make it illegal.)

maxerickson 10y ago
The US has a long history of county officials doing things they shouldn't. This case deserves attention, but it's hardly consequential evidence that freedom of the press is under some new threat.
- logicallee 10y ago
  you rather misunderstand my point. The thing that really outraged me is that the parent comment (which I read before reading the article) wrote: >It's going to be a big stretch to call her a "protester". which is absolutely outrageous phrasing, and it happened here, on HN, not in an article comment section or youtube comments, or in some backwater county courthouse somewhere. Right here, someone says, "it's going to be a big stretch to call her a 'protestor' " as though that were any kind of crime whatsoever. Imagine if it had said nonchallantly, "It's going to be a BIG stretch to call her guilty of thinking. I checked her writing, looking through her blog and facebook, and I didn't find any contraband thoughts. If she's a criminal guilty of thinking then she's hiding it very well. To me, she seems like an actual journalists: she sat in the press conferences, wore her badge, quoted official soundbytes, and I hope got prior restraint approval from the corporations she was covering before she decided to go live with it. If they didn't like her viewpoint they should have expressed it at that point or simply asked her not to write her opinion - I'm sure she would have complied. She doesn't strike me as a criminal or thinker at all!" I'm not exaggerating. That's how bad it is to have someone here on HN write >It's going to be a big stretch to call her a "protester". It's really, really bad. We have to push back very hard against this idea here. There is absolutely nothing wrong about being a protestor. Having protestors is in a very, very real and direct sense the exact and arguably "only" thing that separates us from North Korea. (Which I just watched a documentary on.) By the way, this is despite the fact that reading Democracy Now is like reading Chomsky or, for that matter, Trotsky. I don't read Democracy Now, I don't consider it particularly objective, and I don't agree with their political views. Our country is literally, not in some metaphorical sense, founded on principles of freedom that this phrasing of calling someone a "protestor" or defending that oh no, they're not a protestor, not Amy! She's a good and loyal Citizen --- goes completely counter to.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    In the context of the story, "protester" means "one of the people arrested on private property for obstructing someone authorized by the property owner to work on a pipeline". It's not some dire slippery slope to talk about it being a stretch to lump a journalist in with those folks. Well, it might be, if the commenter you replied to was being incredibly literal with the word they put in quotes to signify that they weren't being entirely literal...
    - logicallee 10y ago
      I don't buy your reading, sorry. It doesn't make sense. Sarcastically: How do I know you're not a protestor too? Are you one of them? Where is your "refuse to belong to any union petition" signature? Who did you vote for? Protestor doesn't mean "someone who illegally obstructs or damages property'. This word doesn't mean that. It is impossible to read the quote this way, > Erickson told the Grand Forks Herald that he did not, in fact, consider Goodman a journalist. even if you bend over backwards like this: http://files.doobybrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/bending-over-backwards.jpg http://files.doobybrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/bendi... Because it specifically talks about her status as a journalist, rather than participation or non-participation in what you call obstruction. It doesn't tallk about whether she obstructed anything - or was guilty of any crime. It talks about whether she's a journalist. As a matter of fact I would like you to reread it and agree with my reading. Thanks. - Edit to your reply: ok. we read it differently. I can agree that there's a bit of interpretation involved here.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        As a matter of fact I would like you to reread it and agree with my reading. Thanks. No.
- najdifb838593 10y ago
  Your statement isn't logical and the conclusion doesn't flow from the first statement. By the same token, every country has a history of officials doing things they shouldn't. So this case doesn't deserve attention.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    The bit about it deserving attention was a tersely stated opinion, not a carefully laid out logical argument. I wasn't trying to support it in the comment.
kbenson 10y ago
So, I understand what the prosecution is trying to say. And what they are trying to say has merit, but not in a legal sense. Journalism without objectivity is not journalism. Presenting facts in a partial manner is not informative (which is a pillar of journalism), it's influential, which should at most be a byproduct of journalism. Does the person that purposefully leaves out relevant information from a story to influence people in the direction they want deserve the title journalist? I think not. (To be clear, I am speaking generally. I am not saying Amy Goodman falls into this category). So, what does this have to do with Amy Goodman? Nothing. Except in the most egregious of cases, it's nigh impossible to tell whether a journalist was purposefully shaping the facts to their narrative, and to allow accusations and prosecutions over this may have such a chilling effect on what is a vital aspect of our democracy, that we should all stand against this. So, in summary, support Amy Goodman in this, protect journalistic rights, but hold them to a high standard, as with those rights should come responsibility, as it should with all rights.
- mratzloff 10y ago
  The prosecutor couldn't care less what the definition of journalism is or isn't, except insofar as it applies to winning the case. He is acting as an arm of the state government, trying to protect moneyed interests by using his prosecutorial power to punish Goodman and intimidate other reporters from getting clever ideas about covering the protests. To that end it's not even worth considering the argument he has presented; it's just a thin veneer of legality, a diversion, and not worth the paper it's printed on.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    Yes, I agree. I'm also saying that even if that wasn't the case, it's almost impossible correctly identify what is journalism and what isn't from a professed journalist and freedom of the press is protected under the first amendment, so the charges are ludicrous on those grounds alone. But because of that we, as the populace, should hold journalists to a high standard and call out what we see as misconduct, since the legal system is ill suited to do so. That's not to say this is a case of that, I'm just trying to make a general point about journalism, which I was spurred to do by the charges leveled (even if they are baseless in this case).

maxerickson 10y ago

The US has a long history of county officials doing things they shouldn't. This case deserves attention, but it's hardly consequential evidence that freedom of the press is under some new threat.

logicallee 10y ago
you rather misunderstand my point. The thing that really outraged me is that the parent comment (which I read before reading the article) wrote: >It's going to be a big stretch to call her a "protester". which is absolutely outrageous phrasing, and it happened here, on HN, not in an article comment section or youtube comments, or in some backwater county courthouse somewhere. Right here, someone says, "it's going to be a big stretch to call her a 'protestor' " as though that were any kind of crime whatsoever. Imagine if it had said nonchallantly, "It's going to be a BIG stretch to call her guilty of thinking. I checked her writing, looking through her blog and facebook, and I didn't find any contraband thoughts. If she's a criminal guilty of thinking then she's hiding it very well. To me, she seems like an actual journalists: she sat in the press conferences, wore her badge, quoted official soundbytes, and I hope got prior restraint approval from the corporations she was covering before she decided to go live with it. If they didn't like her viewpoint they should have expressed it at that point or simply asked her not to write her opinion - I'm sure she would have complied. She doesn't strike me as a criminal or thinker at all!" I'm not exaggerating. That's how bad it is to have someone here on HN write >It's going to be a big stretch to call her a "protester". It's really, really bad. We have to push back very hard against this idea here. There is absolutely nothing wrong about being a protestor. Having protestors is in a very, very real and direct sense the exact and arguably "only" thing that separates us from North Korea. (Which I just watched a documentary on.) By the way, this is despite the fact that reading Democracy Now is like reading Chomsky or, for that matter, Trotsky. I don't read Democracy Now, I don't consider it particularly objective, and I don't agree with their political views. Our country is literally, not in some metaphorical sense, founded on principles of freedom that this phrasing of calling someone a "protestor" or defending that oh no, they're not a protestor, not Amy! She's a good and loyal Citizen --- goes completely counter to.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  In the context of the story, "protester" means "one of the people arrested on private property for obstructing someone authorized by the property owner to work on a pipeline". It's not some dire slippery slope to talk about it being a stretch to lump a journalist in with those folks. Well, it might be, if the commenter you replied to was being incredibly literal with the word they put in quotes to signify that they weren't being entirely literal...
  - logicallee 10y ago
    I don't buy your reading, sorry. It doesn't make sense. Sarcastically: How do I know you're not a protestor too? Are you one of them? Where is your "refuse to belong to any union petition" signature? Who did you vote for? Protestor doesn't mean "someone who illegally obstructs or damages property'. This word doesn't mean that. It is impossible to read the quote this way, > Erickson told the Grand Forks Herald that he did not, in fact, consider Goodman a journalist. even if you bend over backwards like this: http://files.doobybrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/bending-over-backwards.jpg http://files.doobybrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/bendi... Because it specifically talks about her status as a journalist, rather than participation or non-participation in what you call obstruction. It doesn't tallk about whether she obstructed anything - or was guilty of any crime. It talks about whether she's a journalist. As a matter of fact I would like you to reread it and agree with my reading. Thanks. - Edit to your reply: ok. we read it differently. I can agree that there's a bit of interpretation involved here.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      As a matter of fact I would like you to reread it and agree with my reading. Thanks. No.
najdifb838593 10y ago
Your statement isn't logical and the conclusion doesn't flow from the first statement. By the same token, every country has a history of officials doing things they shouldn't. So this case doesn't deserve attention.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The bit about it deserving attention was a tersely stated opinion, not a carefully laid out logical argument. I wasn't trying to support it in the comment.

kbenson 10y ago

So, I understand what the prosecution is trying to say. And what they are trying to say has merit, but not in a legal sense. Journalism without objectivity is not journalism. Presenting facts in a partial manner is not informative (which is a pillar of journalism), it's influential, which should at most be a byproduct of journalism. Does the person that purposefully leaves out relevant information from a story to influence people in the direction they want deserve the title journalist? I think not. (To be clear, I am speaking generally. I am not saying Amy Goodman falls into this category). So, what does this have to do with Amy Goodman? Nothing. Except in the most egregious of cases, it's nigh impossible to tell whether a journalist was purposefully shaping the facts to their narrative, and to allow accusations and prosecutions over this may have such a chilling effect on what is a vital aspect of our democracy, that we should all stand against this. So, in summary, support Amy Goodman in this, protect journalistic rights, but hold them to a high standard, as with those rights should come responsibility, as it should with all rights.

mratzloff 10y ago
The prosecutor couldn't care less what the definition of journalism is or isn't, except insofar as it applies to winning the case. He is acting as an arm of the state government, trying to protect moneyed interests by using his prosecutorial power to punish Goodman and intimidate other reporters from getting clever ideas about covering the protests. To that end it's not even worth considering the argument he has presented; it's just a thin veneer of legality, a diversion, and not worth the paper it's printed on.
- kbenson 10y ago
  Yes, I agree. I'm also saying that even if that wasn't the case, it's almost impossible correctly identify what is journalism and what isn't from a professed journalist and freedom of the press is protected under the first amendment, so the charges are ludicrous on those grounds alone. But because of that we, as the populace, should hold journalists to a high standard and call out what we see as misconduct, since the legal system is ill suited to do so. That's not to say this is a case of that, I'm just trying to make a general point about journalism, which I was spurred to do by the charges leveled (even if they are baseless in this case).